<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Dear Friends<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Lloyd wrote<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>I noted in the presentation (which is from more than 2 years ago -- Aug 2013) that:<br><img width=419 height=54 id="_x0000_i1025" src="cid:image001.png@01D12757.88497AD0"><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>with a specific note in the text that, "there is a need for a testing protocol for batch-fueled stoves" (as expressed in a Resolution in the IWA), and I also noted at the end of the presentation that EPA may assist with the development of "a procedure for testing batch-fueled stoves" via EPA "participation in the ISO process to develop standards and test protocols for stoves" with "experts from many countries", and that, "the timeline is likely to be <b>three years</b>" (beginning Nov 2013).<br><br><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span> So at this point in time I guess that I should assume that there is still no "standard protocol" (stove testing methodology) for stoves that produce biochar, and that we might expect something to be <b>published by the ISO</b> by around the <b>end of 2016</b>?<br><br><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>There is a possible misunderstanding worth noting: it is not necessary to have an entire protocol to test a slightly different stove. A different or adapted ‘procedure’ is adequate. There are many ways to burn fuel.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>There is a standardised procedure for testing batch loaded stoves which has been in use for 5 years in Mongolia and now in other countries. The <i>Heterogeneous Test Protocol</i> from the SeTAR Centre has been used to guide batch-loaded stove product selection with a value of over $45,000,000 (subsidy value, not total sales). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>The test method was externally, expertly reviewed by SGS Netherlands, a requirement of the IWA that has not yet been applied to other test protocols. It is currently being used in the CSI Indonesia Pilot which has selected 16 stoves as being worthy of support, many of them being batch loaded. Thus it has been shown in some 500 tests (at least) that a protocol for batch loaded stoves exists, works well, and is applied. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><br><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Ron L wrote:</span><br>Comments appreciated when we are striving to make char in a stove: <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>Q1: are the losses 22%, 40%, or 67%?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span style='color:#1F497D'> </span>Q2: Is the efficiency 78%, 60%, or 33%?<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><br>All stoves should treated the same way when it comes to testing their cooking performance. That should be established separately from other functions such as space heating, lighting, smoking or the production of char which are ancillary functions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>An energy loss, with reference to cooking, is any energy that is not released from the fuel during a cooking event. This includes partially oxidised gases and fuel components. If one puts fuel into a stove, cooks, and there are remnant fuel constituents that did not fully burn, including gases, they are losses. Is anyone going to collect all the CO and pass it to another stove because it is ‘available fuel’? Of course not! What about the carbon in the ash? What about small pieces that, in the judgement of the tester, as ‘too small’ to be recovered?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Any fuel recovered and used in the next replication of the test sequence can be considered ‘fuel’ and anything that cannot (or is not if one is testing in a social context). Creating a stove crafted to produce a large waste component with certain properties is quite possible. It doesn’t have an effect on the calculation of the cooking efficiency which continues to be calculated according to the energy in the fuel drawn per cycle, and the work delivered.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>For Q1, the answer is the losses are 67%.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Q2 is not well stated. The cooking efficiency is 33%.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>The inexactly named “thermal efficiency” (in a common sense: referring to the energy available in the missing fuel mass and composition) is higher. The heat transfer efficiency is even higher because it refers to fuel actually thermalised. The “thermal efficiency” number refers to energy that has not been thermalised generating more confusion than necessary.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Lloyd wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>></span>Creating an "importance" factor is a very <i>subjective</i> thing to do, however. ;-)<br><br><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Agreed. Users, vendors and funders may have very different rankings of ‘features’.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></body></html>